The Push for a Two-State Solution

Summary

Amanpour Podcast: "The Push for a Two-State Solution"

Date: September 22, 2025
Host: Christiane Amanpour | Guests: Dominique de Villepin, Hossein Ara, Robert Malley

---

Overview

This episode dives into the renewed push for international recognition of a Palestinian state amidst Israel’s ongoing offensive in Gaza. Christiane Amanpour interviews former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin about France and other Western allies’ historic recognition of Palestine, and pressing whether this marks true progress towards a two-state solution or remains symbolic. The program analyzes the failures of past peace negotiations with veteran peace negotiators Hossein Ara and Robert Malley, who dissect their pessimism in their new book, Tomorrow Is Yesterday.
The episode also features a segment on the Trump administration’s cuts to cancer research, covered by Jonathan Mahler of The New York Times Magazine.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Turning Diplomatic Recognition Into a Solution

Guest: Dominique de Villepin ([02:32])

• France’s Motivation: The recent recognition of the Palestinian state is a reversal of past peace processes, aiming to make recognition the starting point, not the end goal.
• Core Principles: Emphasizes the importance of international law, self-determination, and justice.
  • “It is part of the international world.” ([04:40])
• A Message to Israel & US: Acknowledges the move is a direct challenge to policies of Netanyahu’s government and the US stance; asserts recognition cannot be erased.

Addressing Accusations of "Rewarding Hamas" ([05:08])

• De Villepin rebuts claims that recognition is a reward for Hamas, referencing the New York Declaration, which calls for Hamas to be put aside and demilitarized.
  • “So in no way there is any kind of reward in the direction of Hamas. It’s exactly the contrary.” ([06:09])
• Warns against letting the conflict devolve into a religious war.

What’s Next? Realistic Steps and Obstacles ([07:51–12:24])

• First Steps: Ceasefire, release of hostages, and humanitarian stabilization in Gaza.
• Netanyahu’s Agenda: De Villepin fears Israel’s leadership prioritizes expanding territory (“Greater Israel”) over peaceful resolution.
  • “The main goal of Benjamin Netanyahu is the Greater Israel, is the deportation of the Palestinian of Gaza outside Gaza.” ([09:22])
• Necessity of Pressure: Calls for Europe to implement real sanctions, such as suspending EU trade agreements, to push Israel toward negotiation.

On International Responsibility ([13:11])

• Criticizes both Europe’s hesitancy to impose sanctions and the US for uncritically backing Israel.
• Denounces ongoing suffering in Gaza as a “genocide,” and warns inaction will encourage nuclear proliferation and greater regional instability.
  • “There is an ongoing genocide. This is the responsibility of every citizen of the world to feel responsible for what’s going on.” ([14:25])

---

2. Lessons from Failed Peace Processes

Guests: Hossein Ara & Robert Malley ([22:19])

Recognition Without a Roadmap? ([23:05])

• Skepticism About Recognition: Both argue that while international recognition grabs headlines, it doesn’t address formidable obstacles on the ground—rising settlements, unresolved right of return, and deep security mistrust.
  • Malley: “How is recognition going to change anything on the ground? There have been many other instances... support on paper for a two-state solution, but none of the obstacles have been able to be overcome.” ([23:44])

The Core Misconceptions ([25:44])

• Ara claims decades of negotiations mischaracterized the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as solvable merely by drawing borders.
  • “They looked at it as being just a territorial conflict that can be solved through drawing lines on maps... But all the messy issues at the heart of this conflict, feelings, emotions, yearnings, dispossession, dispersal, aspirations... you never discuss them." ([26:13])

Realistic Pathways Forward? ([27:47–30:18])

• Both negotiators reject the idea that a two-state solution is imminent, urging new thinking and emphasizing the need to end the current violence before any lasting framework is considered.
  • Malley: “Rather sort of like a wind up doll and say two-state solution every time... This is a time where the first party should be the end the carnage in Gaza and that should be where all the focus is.” ([29:23])

Oslo: Celebrating Ambiguity ([30:18])

• Reflecting on the 1993 Oslo Accords, the negotiators argue its vagueness led to inevitable collapse since both sides had irreconcilable expectations.
  • "Ambiguity about the destination made the agreement possible and its undoing inexorable." ([30:50])
• Ara: “The Palestinians thought that Oslo will lead to a Palestinian state. The Israelis thought that Oslo was a mechanism through which they can secure the Palestinian population under their control... So they were moving in parallel lines all through.” ([31:20])

Camp David Myths ([33:05])

• Both guests debunk the popular myth that Yasser Arafat refused a “generous offer” from Israel, explaining such an offer was never formally made nor was the process serious.
  • Malley: “No piece of paper with the proposal. The gaps were too great. There was no agreement on territory, security, Jerusalem, refugees... we never were close.” ([34:33])

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• De Villepin on Recognition’s Message:
  “Whatever you do, the principle of the recognition of Palestine cannot be erased. It is part of the international world.” ([04:40])

• De Villepin on Dangers of Prolonged Conflict:
  “If we let these forces together, we will end up in an even bigger war between religion, which will be the worse for the whole region.” ([07:10])

• Malley on Failed Frameworks:
  “But if it hasn’t worked under far better circumstances than today... why should it work now?” ([29:00])

• Ara on Oslo’s Parallel Tracks:
  “If there is a Palestinian agency that’s willing to take over and perform this task, then they are welcome and thus Oslo... But if you misread the situation, if you have different intentions, you cannot reach the same destination.” ([31:38])

---

Key Timestamps

• 00:00–01:00: Amanpour sets the stage with current global context and significance of UN recognition.
• 02:32–15:29: De Villepin on France’s recognition, the logic, obstacles, and necessity for international pressure.
• 22:19–36:41: Deep dive with Hossein Ara and Robert Malley on why the two-state solution has repeatedly failed and why new thinking is needed.
  • 23:05: Malley questions recognition’s practical value.
  • 25:44: Ara explains failure to address the conflict’s “messy” roots.
  • 30:18 & 31:16: Analysis of Oslo and misunderstandings.
  • 33:05 & 34:33: Camp David’s “missed opportunity” re-examined.

---

Additional Segment: The Real Cost of Trump’s Cancer Research Cuts ([36:41])

Guest: Jonathan Mahler

• The Trump administration’s proposed 38% budget cut to cancer research would dramatically damage the search for cancer cures.
• Mahler spotlights affected scientists—like Dr. Rachel Sirianni—forced to halt promising pediatric cancer research due to axed NIH grants.
  • “At the very moment that the Trump administration has decided that we’re spending, apparently decided that we’re spending way too much money trying to cure cancer.” ([37:20])
• Warns this could reverse decades of progress just as immunotherapy and early detection are beginning to revolutionize treatment.
  • “This is one of the most productive moments, if not the most productive moment in the history of cancer research...” ([45:07])

---

Conclusion

This Amanpour episode highlights the complexity and urgency of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the dangers of symbolic gestures without ground-level change. While international recognition of Palestine by Western countries, led by France, marks a diplomatic shift, veteran negotiators warn that old frameworks and slogans cannot fix structural conflicts or unaddressed grievances.

The show closes with a sobering look at US cancer research, warning how political agenda and funding cuts may jeopardize life-saving breakthroughs at a critical time.

---

Suitable for those who haven’t listened, this summary captures the episode’s rich, candid discussions, core arguments, and noted expert perspectives.

Transcript

[Christiane Amanpour]

Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpur. Here's what's coming up.

[Dominique de Villepin]

This is about the world saying enough is enough.

[Christiane Amanpour]

A pledge to the Palestinian and Israeli.

[Dominique de Villepin]

People that there can be a better future.

[Christiane Amanpour]

More Western allies recognize a Palestinian state. I speak with France's former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin about how the diplomatic tide is turning. Then, as Gaza City feels the force of Israel's offensive. What can we learn from failed peace talks of the past? I asked veteran negotiators Hossein Aga and Robert Malley about their new book, Tomorrow Is Yesterday.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Also ahead, are we just going to concede the fact that we are going to, you know, essentially surrender the war on cancer?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Millions of lives on the line. Jonathan Mahler from the New York Times Magazine tells Hari Srinivasan about the real cost of Trump's cuts. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in New York, where world leaders are gathering for the UN Annual General assembly meeting. It comes at one of the most turbulent times in its 80 year history. Amid global polarization, an emboldened Russian leader, rapidly advancing technologies and an overheating planet. The future of Israel's war in Gaza is top of the agenda. The UK Australia, Canada and Portugal have led the latest push to formally recognize a Palestinian state, with France set to join them today at a summit French President Emmanuel Macron is convening alongside Saudi Arabia. The hope is to revive a two state solution that seems as distant as ever. Israel's assault on Gaza City is intensifying and tens of thousands of Palestinians are scrambling to flee, many with simply nowhere to go. So can this flurry of international recognition push past symbolic gesture into actual lasting solution? Let's bring in the former French Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, joining me from Paris. Welcome to the program.

[Dominique de Villepin]

Thank you.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Prime Minister, can I ask you, do you believe, I assume you do as your, you know, French leader, that this will revive a two state solution process, or do you think it will just get massive backlash from Israel and the United States, which doesn't recognize this move?

[Dominique de Villepin]

Well, we hope that it is going to be a new departure. This decision to recognize the state of Palestine comes because of the failure of previous peace processes. We've seen the Oslo process, the Camp David process, the Taba process, the Annapolis process, they all failed. And the idea today is to reverse the former process. Not to have the recognition at the end of the day after solving all the difficulties, but starting with the recognition, which is a very strong gesture toward Palestine and toward the Arab world. And of course, Trying now to tackle all the different problems that we are facing, but starting with the recognition. Behind the recognition, there are two principles that are concerned. The first one is the respect of international law, self determination for every people. And the second principle we want to recognize is a principle of justice. We see the drama, the ongoing drama in the region. We see the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza. We see the policy of colonization and annexation of West Bank. This has to stop. And we are sending a very strong message to Israel and to the United States. Whatever you do, the principle of the recognition of Palestine cannot be erased. It is part of the international world.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Mr. De Vipin, you know, the Israelis, and in fact the United States says that this is a reward for Hamas. It comes very close to the second anniversary of October 7th. And they say, well, Netanyahu himself has said, and by the way, this is never going to happen. First address the Hamas issue.

[Dominique de Villepin]

Well, it's a very important issue. And I think that nobody who knows the file can say what Benjamin Netanyahu is saying. It is exactly the reverse. This decision of recognition that will start today is the end of a long process. We have taken the Declaration of New York, the New York Declaration, following the summit in July and mid September, this declaration has been adopted by a vast majority of states in the General Assembly. And this declaration says very clearly that Hamas has to be put on the side. Hamas has to be demilitarized. So this recognition has a starting point which is to put away Hamas and to say very clearly that all the Arab states are willing to build up a new political situation in Gaza and for Palestine. So in no way there is any kind of reward in the direction of Hamas. It's exactly the contrary. And we must remember that from the beginning, from its creation, Hamas has not been looking for the creation of a Palestinian state. On the contrary, Hamas has been looking for the destruction of Israel. So today is an important step for the recognition and the normalization of the place of Israel in the Middle East. And the risk if we don't go forward in that direction is that the ongoing war in Gaza, the ongoing fight in west bank will end up as a religious war. We see that Hamas is a religious, is an Islamic terrorist movement. And Israel, we see that at the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the people that are taking the lead are the messianic representative of Israel. If we let these forces together, we will end up in an even bigger war between religion, which will be the worse for the whole region.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Let me just play a little bit about what your president, Emmanuel Macron, has said about the stages of this recognition. And let me just play it and we'll go through it in a minute.

[Dominique de Villepin]

So we will announce a recognition, but which is the beginning of a political process and a peace and security plan for everybody. So right after this recognition, we have a first phase, which is, I would say, the emergency phase. Ceasefire, release of all stages. And third, restoring the humanitarian roads and the stabilization of Gaza.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So, Monsieur de Villepin, he's laid out the phases. What do you think will be the pragmatic, you've explained the geopolitic, the idealistic, you know, desire for justice and a state and sovereignty and security for everyone, but the pragmatic next steps. What happens next? What will be the immediate effect of this recognition if Israel and us doesn't agree?

[Dominique de Villepin]

Well, the first phase should be the political phase with the ceasefire, which will allow the freedom of hostages, which is a key step. We need to end this enduring horror that the hostages have been going through for almost two years. For this, there are two conditions. The first one, to create the global atmosphere, to get this ceasefire. And the second thing that we do need is Israel, the government of Israel, agreeing on that. The question is, how important today for the government of Benjanyahu releasing the hostages, Is it a priority or it is not the priority? My fear is that the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is pursuing another goal. And the main goal of Benjamin Netanyahu is the Greater Israel, is the deportation of the Palestinian of Gaza outside Gaza in order to be able to achieve what has been set as the goal of the Trump administration and the Israeli government, which is the great trust plan. There is a plan to go forward, to have all the Palestinians out. And on the another side, they are looking for the annexation of the most, the biggest part of the west bank, 60%, the sea part, is the objective of the current government of Netanyahu. Discussing with Marco Rubio, how possible is it to achieve these goals? I'm afraid that the hostages might not be at the top of the agenda. And what we need is to put pressure on the Israeli government and to create the condition of this ceasefire. We have been seeing the mediators, Egypt and Qatar, working very hard. And it seems that today there is on the table an agreement. How much the Israeli government is going to seize this opportunity or are they going to look for a bigger political strategy, which is the one we know as the Greater Israel? We have to understand that today we are in a completely new situation after these two years of war. Israel is dominating the region every single, almost every single objective of Benjamin Netanyahu had been achieved. And now since 1836, the domination of Israel and we have to go back to the Ottoman Empire to have such a domination. They want to transform this domination in the perspective of the Greater Israel. Of course, we have to understand there is no way Israel is going to maintain its domination through force. We need to trans because if we don't do that, Israel will never be secure in its own borders. So we need to pressure the government of Benjamin Netanyahu to accept a long lasting peace that will secure its own country.

[Christiane Amanpour]

How do you pressure then? Because, you know, every country, certainly many Europeans before Trump, came along to an extent. The Biden administration was trying to get it to, you know, abide by the rules of the road and international law in its war against Hamas. Spain now has pledged a permanent ban on the sale of weapons to Israel. Belgium announced a plan for a ban on imports from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. But how do you actually pressure Israel to do this? Because as I say, while the United States is standing by. You mentioned Marco Rubio. President Trump has had endless discussions with President, with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the result seems to be ok. This is just a decision for Israel. They're free to do whatever they want.

[Dominique de Villepin]

Well, as a matter of fact, we have very clearly to look at the picture. The Europeans, they have not done everything they can to put pressure on Israel. They have not decided to adopt sanctions on Israel. We have an EU agreement, associated agreement with Israel, which is very important for the Israeli economy. If we suspend this agreement, it will take weeks or maybe very little months for Israel to be in the obligation to react. Concerning the United States. They have done nothing but to accompany the willingness of Israel to go forward on its political project. So we need to open the eyes on what is going on both in Gaza and in the west bank. There is an ongoing genocide. This is the responsibility of every citizen of the world to feel responsible for what's going on. And the Trump administration cannot forget its own responsibility. And we must put the necessary pressure. So it's through international pressure and action. What will be decided in the General assembly is of course very important. We may consider it's very symbolic. And that's why the Arab states, the European states, the Trump administration must realize that if we want to stop the tragedy in Gaza with all the risk of an extension of war, because we have to understand that the consequences might be more terrorism for the region and elsewhere around the world and more nuclear proliferation. Because the only message that we are sending for the countries of the region is that if you don't have a nuclear capability, you are not protected. So it is more violence, more tensions, more inhumanity that will develop in this region. And I think it's time to take responsibility for what is going on.

[Christiane Amanpour]

You know, you stood up in the UN General Assembly. You remember it well, many people remember it well in 2003, and you gave a speech just before then. George W. Bush's administration wanted to go to war in Iraq. And it was about so called weapons of mass destruction. France had a different idea. It did not believe in the rush to war. Here's what you said. No one today can claim that the path of war will be shorter than the path of inspections. No one can claim that it would lead to a safer, more just, more stable world. For war is always the sanction of failure. Would this be our sole recourse in the face of the many challenges at this time? So let us give the United nations inspectors the time they need for their mission to succeed. You were foreign minister back then, and I also interviewed your president, Jacques Chirac. He said the very same thing. Give them more time, the inspectors. And in the end, he was right. The war was a disaster. There was no weapons of mass destruction. And we know what that war did for the Middle east. And in fact, all the blowback it happened. But France was isolated back then. And I wonder what it felt like being isolated when you were trying to tell your friends, the U.S. to think a little bit, to spend a little more time thinking about this, like people are trying to tell Israel. Remember Joe Biden said to Israel right after October 7, don't do what we did in Iraq.

[Dominique de Villepin]

Well, of course, it's hugely painful, I'm afraid. Among the main reasons for Benjamin Netanyahu to follow this policy, there are many, many domestic reasons, personal reasons, and a strong ideological stand, which is through force you can get security and peace, which is the biggest mistake any country can make. Everything we learned in the last 25 years shows us that force without a.

[Hossein Ara]

Strong.

[Dominique de Villepin]

Political strategy can get you nowhere but more violence and more terrorism. And we know already for sure that after two years of a long fight against Hamas in Gaza, there is almost the same number of people belonging to Hamas, 25,000 than previously. That means terrorism. You cannot kill terrorism just by killing soldiers. You need to fight the ideology through another way. And you have to give hope to the people of Palestine. If you don't give hope to the people of Palestine, how would they understand that they have to disregard the Hamas messages? So the responsibility for Europeans and Americans today is to choose the path of responsibility, to take the lessons of history. And I think it's very important for the US Administration today to understand that everywhere the credibility of the US Diplomacy is tackled in Ukraine, the US Administration is showing powerlessness. In the Middle east, the real boss is not Donald Trump. The boss is Benjamin Netanyahu. And Donald Trump has to follow, even when he doesn't want to do so, like in Iran, he has to follow Benjamin Netanyahu, who is playing with him. At the end of the day, this is not creating a stable world.

[Christiane Amanpour]

One last question, because you mentioned Ukraine and it's really important. This is also a turning point moment with Russian fighter jets. The latest is that they went into Estonian airspace and spent 12 minutes in Estonian airspace. This is after breaching Polish and Romanian airspace with drones. Here is what the British foreign secretary said. Take a listen. And to President Putin, I say your reckless actions risk a direct armed confrontation between NATO and Russia. Our alliance is defensive, but be under no illusion. We stand ready to take all steps necessary to defend NATO's skies and NATO's territory. We are vigilant, we are resolute. And if we need to confront planes that are operating in NATO airspace without permission, then we will do so. We have about 30 seconds less. I want to ask you, given that speech, given what Putin is doing now, testing, testing, testing, do you think NATO should do what Turkey and NATO nation did a few years ago, shoot down the Russian planes that entered its airspace without any permission? Is it time to do something like that?

[Dominique de Villepin]

We should advise very clearly President Putin that he's taking a big risk and we will respond. And I think President Trump would be well advised to send strong messages and not find excuses to President Putin. While President Putin is trying to play with the country of the region, it's time for responsibility for all of us. This is a very, very serious matter. And the name of our country, the name and the interest of our people is at stake.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Indeed, former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin. Thank you for joining us from Paris and stay with us because we'll be right back after the break.

[Dominique de Villepin]

I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of.

[Hossein Ara]

Service, the primary goal of education and for teachers is to prepare our students for the workforce. Dr. Kathleen Torregrossa, a teacher and teacher.

[Dominique de Villepin]

Educator for 37 years.

[Hossein Ara]

She's now helping to train teachers on how to use AI in the classroom. What we do in the classroom has to be on the forefront of what's new and cutting edge as well.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Otherwise, our students aren't going to go.

[Hossein Ara]

Out into the world and be prepared for that workforce.

[Dominique de Villepin]

Listen to CNN's terms of service with.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Me, Claire Duffy, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So let's dig a little deeper. Is the two state solutions still feasible? Our next guests have had front row seats to that pursuit in the past. Former peace negotiators Hossein Ara and Robert Malley are sharing what we can all learn in their new book, Tomorrow is Yesterday. And they both join me now. Welcome to the program and thank you for joining me. I wonder if you listened to Dominique de Villepin of France talking about why this recognition was absolutely necessary. Robert Malley, from the American perspective. And you've been, you know, in the room where it all happened. You I know you've written the book about it, but is this a good thing and will it be pragmatically useful for peace in the Middle east, this recognition that we're seeing at the UN this week?

[Hossein Ara]

So first, thanks for having us. I listened to the former prime minister. I have a huge respect for him. I think, as you showed, the role he played against the war in Iraq. But I think if you listen to what he said, there's one big I mean, he said we need to turn the situation around rather than first resolve the conflict, let's first recognize the state and then resolve the issues. But you still have to resolve the issues. And he hasn't given us a clue. And neither none of the parties that is recognizing a Palestinian state are telling us how it's going to come about. So I understand the support in Europe. And some Palestinians, I'm sure, feel quite happy that at least people are paying attention to them after so many years of ignoring them. But how is recognition going to change anything on the ground? There have been many other instances, let's not forget, where the United States was pushing for a two state solution on paper. We remember the roadmap for peace which not just the United States but the Palestinians and the Israelis agreed to during the presidency of the second President Bush. So there's been time and time again where there's been support on paper for a two state solution, but none of the obstacles have been able to be overcome. And so now recognition of a Palestinian state. What is France, what is Saudi Arabia? What are others going to do when Israel objects, when Israel continues what it's doing, the massacres in Gaza, when it continues to expand its footprint in the West Bank? And let's not forget, since October 7th, settlers in the west bank have increased the territory under their control, the territory three times the size of Gaza. So what are they going to say when that continues? What are they going to say even if they were to get to the table, which seems unlikely at this point, to overcome the problems that have bedeviled the pursuit of a two state solution in the past? The inability to reconcile Palestinians demands for justice, for the rights of the refugees, for a real sovereign state, and Israeli demands for absolute security and for recognition of a Jewish state and for normalcy. How do you reconcile those? What do you do about 700,000 people, Jewish settlers in the west bank and in Jerusalem? What do you do about the millions of refugees who still want their rights to be respected? So those are the problems that have shown that in the past have made a two state solution impossible. Everything has gotten worse since that time.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well then let me ask your collaborator, Hossein Arar in this book, if it's not a two state solution, Hossein Harar, what is it? What is the solution then for Palestinian independence and sovereignty and security as a Jewish state for Israel?

[Robert Malley]

At this stage, there is no solution. At this stage. We have to redefine the conflict, find out where we went wrong. Remember, this conflict did not start with 67 or with the Oslo process. And it's been going on the idea of a two state solution for over 80 years. And it has not worked. And nobody stopped and looked and said, why did it not work? We had the partition plan before that. They had commissioned the White Paper and then we had the Palestinians recognizing Israel and asking for a Palestinian state in 88. And then we had Oslo and then you had Camp David and then we had the Olmert Abbas dialogue, the Annapolis process, the Kerry plans, and they all did not work. Nobody has stopped and looked and said, why did they not work and why did they move forward? They did not work because they misconceived what the conflict was about. They looked at it as being just a territorial conflict that can be solved through drawing lines on maps and saying, you know, this side is Israeli or Jewish and this side is Arab and that's it. But all the messy issues at the heart of this conflict, feelings, emotions, yearnings, dispossession, dispersal, aspirations. You always recognize that they are important, but you never discuss them. You say, these do not lead you to policies that are well defined and applicable. So you go for the easy option of looking for neat kind of workouts that will work out, and they don't work out.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Robert Malley it does sound that both of you are very down on this idea. You know, we've seen the history. I think some of you have written that certainly other negotiators have said that one of the issues was that America often acted too much, not like an honest broker, but like Israel's lawyer. And I just wondered, what are your creative solutions then? Or do you agree? Have you both come to the conclusion, like Netanyahu just said, that this is never going to happen, A Palestinian state is never going to happen.

[Hossein Ara]

So listen, as Hussein said, we're not right now in the business of saying here's a solution. And both Hussein and I have participated in, in many instances. Hussein, for a long time, I did it under three, two US Administrations, we failed. So it's not up to us now to say, oh, we have the solution, here's the blueprint. In fact, anyone who has a blueprint, I'd love to see it. We're all ears. Because it's very hard to see how we go from where we are now to a peaceful outcome for both peoples. But one thing that we try to point out in our book is that we're not in a new situation. This is very reminiscent of where Israelis and Palestinians were decades ago, before the ASO process, when they were searching for some common horizon, some common language. And it started with Israelis and Palestinians meeting privately, quietly, courageous Israelis, courageous Palestinians exploring ideas. And maybe that's what needs to happen today, is we get to go back to the drawing board, which is very frustrating given I understand people want to just reach to the shelf and find the first convenient solution. And it's a two state solution because we haven't spoken about anything else for so long. But if it hasn't worked under far better circumstances than today, I have to repeat that. I mean the situation on the ground was far superior in the 90s, in the early 2000s, even 10 years ago, five years ago, and the support on both sides was much greater and the level of animosity was less. So we're in far, far worse situation today. So rather sort of like a wind up doll and say two state solution every time we don't know what else to say and every time people feel they need to do something. This is a time where the first party should be the end the carnage in Gaza and that should be where all the focus is. And then take some time and think more creatively about how these two peoples can live in peace with their aspirations satisfied. That's not going to be easy. And I certainly don't have the answer sitting here today.

[Christiane Amanpour]

As you were Talking. We saw the famous handshake on the White house lawn in 1993 cementing the Oslo process. We saw all these invited guests clapping and cheering. But in the book you say on the Oslo Accords, the world celebrated a text it equated with an irrevocable one way path to peace. Ambiguity about the destination made the agreement possible and its undoing inexorable. Hossein, take me through that again. Because you talked about how, you know, the negotiators, they didn't focus on a lot of the, as you called it, human issues. The emotionalit was all done in terms of the word security and not in any otherin any other terms. Walk me through about why you think that even back then the ambiguity about the destination meant that, that it was inevitable that this Oslo was going to fail.

[Robert Malley]

Well, the Israelis had a view of Oslo which was different from the Palestinians. The Palestinians thought that Oslo will lead to a Palestinian state. The Israelis thought that Oslo was a mechanism through which they can secure the Palestinian population under their control without really expending Israeli resources because they tried to do it via themselves. It did not work. So if there is a Palestinian agency that's willing to take over and perform this task, then they are welcome and thus Oslo, if this was never discussed as such at the time, the Palestinians never said that we are not here to subcontract Israeli security. The the Israelis never said that, you know, this is about Palestinian state. So they were moving in parallel lines all through. That's why you could not get them together to agree to anything. And they tried. And there are good people on both sides who wanted to have some kind of resolution. But if you misread the situation, if you have different intentions, you cannot reach the same destination.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Just before I go back to Rob for a last question, I just want to ask you, because of course you were an advisor to Yasser Arafat and to Mahmoud Abbas. Do you think that Arafat missed one of the only real chances when the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak laid it out in chapter and verse about what he was willing to, you know, trade for peace. That was land that was, you know, sharing Jerusalem. It was a lot.

[Robert Malley]

That's a myth. Show me what Ehud Barak presented Arafat with and Arafat said no to. It does not exist. It does not exist. As a matter of fact, when Barak returned from Camp David, he said, I am the only Israeli prime minister since Begin that has not given or offered the Palestinians anything. So there was this myth created around Camp David and about this generous offer that Arafat rejected. And anyway, Arafat knew before going to Camp David that the situation was not ripe. And he told President Clinton that this is not going to work out and you're going to blame me. And then Clinton told him, no, I will not blame you even if it doesn't work out. And lo and behold, it did not work out. And Clinton came out and blamed Arafat. So Arafat is not the villain of the piece. I don't think even Barak is the villain of the piece. The situation was such that it could not have resulted in anything else.

[Christiane Amanpour]

You know, I always struggle with that, I have to say. And Rob Manley, do you agree that Barack offered nothing? I mean, what was all that stuff we were told about then? And he keeps saying it and Clinton keeps saying it, and Clinton is still angry as you very that Arafat turned it down only to accept it when it was too late, as Clinton was leaving office.

[Hossein Ara]

So the first point I'd make is just echoing what Hussein said. Listen to Hud Barak and what he said afterwards. And he makes clear that he was there to expose and to unmask Arafat. Put that aside. Listen to the words of the then Israeli foreign minister, Shlomo Ben Ami, who says if he had been a Palestinian and he had heard the ideas that were expressed at Camp David, he would have rejected them. I mean, it is true, and we say it in the book very clearly, that Ehud Barak moved in terms of the ideas that he was prepared to share and the abstract ideas he shared with President Clinton and President Clinton shared with Yasser Arfat, beyond what other Israeli leaders had done. No doubt about it. But the measure of whether a deal is serious is not how far Israel has moved from its initial position, it's how close the two parties are. And there were huge gaps. I think if you speak now to almost any American member of the team, including many Israeli members of their team, they would say that this was not organized, it was not serious effort to reach a pizza. There was no piece of paper with the proposal. The gaps were too great. There was no agreement on territory, security, Jerusalem, refugees. So it was a great brainstorming. We all learned a lot about their respective positions, but we never were close. And to say that that was the opportunity, I think says a lot about how few opportunities there have been over the years.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, listen, it's a sad situation. Your book Tomorrow is Yesterday is a really interesting read. Thank you to Rob Malley and to Hossein Hara. And we'll be right back after this short break. Now about 40% of Americans will be diagnosed with a type of cancer at some point in their lives. It's an alarming statistic, made even more so by the fact that cancer research itself is under threat in the United States. With the Trump administration continuing to slash millions of dollars in vital funding and leaving countless families scrambling for options. Staff writer for the New York Times Magazine, Jonathan Mahler is investigating just what kind of impact these cuts are already having across the country. He joins Hari Srinivasan to discuss his findings.

[Hari Srinivasan]

Christian, thanks. Jonathan Mahler, thanks so much for joining us. You wrote a piece in the New York Times Magazine recently, and it's titled Trump Is Shutting down the War on Cancer. And you take so many different approaches in this piece. Let's, I guess, start with first, what do you mean by this? Give me the scale of the war on cancer and what he's shutting down.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah. So, I mean, the war on cancer is something that we started, launched in this country back in 1971. President Nixon actually signed the legislation, the National Cancer Act. And really what it was was a commitment to make a sustained, large investment in treating cancer and improving our treatment of cancer. And over the decades, that investment has grown steadily, and now we've reached a moment where we're poised for even greater breakthroughs. At the very moment that the Trump administration has decided that we're spending, apparently decided that we're spending way too much money trying to cure cancer. And the war on, the war on cancer, it's happening both in terms of the cancellation of individual grants, so individual projects that were dedicated to discovering new treatments or kind of adapting new treatments. It's happening in terms of freezes in funding to research. Universities that depend on NIH money to keep their labs running are suddenly finding that money frozen, not appearing. And then it's happening on a kind of a larger, even larger scale. And this is something that's still a little bit to be determined. But the president's proposed budget for next year, which is still before Congress, is calling for a 38% cut to our cancer research budget, which is $3 billion. I mean, this is a lot of money.

[Hari Srinivasan]

Give me an idea or give our audience some perspective here and set the level. Okay. This has been happening for decades. How successful has that war been? I mean, we're spending billions and billions of dollars every year. I get that. But is there a way that you can measure what a dollar gets us?

[Jonathan Mahler]

Yeah. So, I mean, my favorite statistic is, which was published recently in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Is that about every $300 that the government spends on cancer research extends someone's life by one year. That feels like a pretty modest investment to me, as someone who lost his mom to cancer. Seems to me pretty worth it. To say nothing of the fact that there are enormous economic benefits to this investment, too. I mean, the biotechnology industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and all the investors in these companies have all made an enormous amount of money off of the research that began on this basic biological level, funded by our government.

[Hari Srinivasan]

And so when somebody gets a cancer today versus perhaps our parents generation, what is the likely outcome? Are we more likely to survive it? Are there fewer cancers that are kind of untreatable?

[Jonathan Mahler]

Our ability to treat cancer has been dramatically transformed, particularly since the 1990s. So really, if you think about how this whole war on cancer has unfolded, the first 20 plus years were really a period where scientists were mostly grappling with how much more complicated this disease was than they had realized. It's not a single disease. It's hundreds of thousands of diseases, and each one behaves differently on every organ and in everyone's body. And really, beginning in the late 90s, you know, what had been basically the only options historically had been, you know, surgery, really. And then, you know, chemotherapy came along and radiation as well. But these were, you know, all. Both radiation and chemotherapy are enormously toxic and, you know, not always effective. But what really, the biggest innovation, and the innovation that we're still really. Scientists are still really, really building on is what's known as immunotherapy. And immunotherapy is essentially the use of one's immune system, the stimulation of an immune system to detect the mutant cancer cells and fight the cells itself. So your immune system does the work that otherwise these toxic chemotherapy chemicals would be doing, which people tolerate much better. So their quality of life during treatment is much better, and it's also much more effective. So this is a new, you know, immunotherapy is relatively new. We're talking about, you know, 15, 15 years or so, and there's still a lot of cancers where they're just beginning to understand how to use immunotherapies.

[Hari Srinivasan]

To illustrate what's happening kind of in the research ecosystem, you, help kind of personalize it by looking at Rachel sirianni, a professor at the university of Massachusetts. Her research focuses on an aggressive form of pediatric cancer known as medulloblastoma. Tell us her story and how it's indicative of what's happening to other researchers, people who are facing grants.

[Jonathan Mahler]

She's working on Basically a new way to deliver a drug, to deliver drugs into the interior of the brain to attack this very aggressive form of pediatric brain cancer, which kills hundreds of kids every year. Medulloblastoma. And so she's been working kind of steadily on this for 10 years now. And she had three NIH grants to do this work, was making great progress. Her grants were just, because they only last for five years or so, were coming up in 2025 and 2026. So coming into this new year and the new presidential administration, she was aware that she needed new grants to keep her research going. She runs a lab of, with seven researchers and technicians, and it's expensive and time consuming work running all these studies. So she had submitted two grant applications to keep her work going to the nih. And days after the inauguration, she was informed that the meetings where her grants were going to be considered had been canceled. And so months now went by. She had to start laying people off in her lab. She had to cancel one of her most promising studies. And then she was informed that in June that they were not, that neither project was going to be funded. So now she's faced with this decision of, well, what am I going to do? This is this important work that I'm devoted to, that I've been doing for years now, and I'm making great progress. And she's come to this decision now that, that for the moment at least, she can't really focus on this work any longer because pediatric brain cancer work is very expensive. It's expensive because it requires a very specific kind of lab mouse. So now she's decided she's going to have to just pivot away from it and start working in some other fields, which is obviously tragic. I mean, this was a woman who was making great strides in helping children with brain cancer survive. And I mean, it's hard to imagine something more worthy for our government to be investing in. And yet here she is having to move to other fields.

[Hari Srinivasan]

So we're in a period now where you said that in the mid-70s, America's five year cancer survival rate sat at 49%. Today it's 68%. That's startling considering how relatively new immunotherapy is and perhaps some of the work that's happening with MRNA research that could impact cancer. Is this a productive time for cancer research?

[Jonathan Mahler]

Many people whom I spoke with said that this is one of the most productive moments, if not the most productive moment in the history of cancer research, because we have all of that accumulated knowledge. We have all of this new technology, we have artificial intelligence. There's so many sort of forces coming together. There is, as you say, there are cancer vaccines, MRNA vaccines, and other cancer vaccines being developed. There are new studies now to detect cancer in the bloodstream years before you have any symptoms. So the ability to begin to treat cancer before it even appears. There's a new radiation treatment in development. It's a flash of radiation that's literally a microsecond, and that's it. And so rather than a prolonged radiation treatment which causes all sorts of damage to the surrounding tissue, it just hits the spot and just in an instant and you're done. And as I was telling you before, immunotherapy is this incredibly promising area. So there is. There's so much going on right now. It's a really exciting time for cancer research, but of course, it's also a terrifying time for cancer researchers.

[Hari Srinivasan]

So let's talk a little bit about kind of the politics and the motivation of president's cuts on this. I mean, even as you describe, if the NIH stopped taking meetings well before kind of DOGE came in, this seems like part of sort of an orchestrated plan on what to do.

[Jonathan Mahler]

This was a very deliberate and premeditated campaign. And it's not an easy thing to do because the NIH and the nci, the National Cancer Institute, which is, you know, part of the nih, which kind of oversees a lot of the cancer research in this country, they were built to be insulated from politics for obvious reasons. So if you wanted to make, you know, a sort of politically motivated assault on these institutions, you know, it was going to require some forethought. And that's what happened. I mean, this administration came in and they knew exactly what to do and how they were going to do it, and they started freezing grants. It's unprecedented for active research grants to be canceled. I mean, truly unprecedented. And, you know, and it was happening by, you know, by the hundreds. It's unprecedented for universities to have their funding frozen. So this administration, they knew how to disrupt this system, and they did. And what's puzzling to me is still, is, you know, you can explain this, I think, as, okay, this is part of the war on government bureaucracy on what they would say is government argue is government waste. This is part of the war on research universities that they feel are too progressive to left. This is also important to say this is part of a kind of attack on the scientific establishment, which, of course, has lost a lot of its credibility in many quarters during the COVID pandemic. I get that, but what's your plan? Once you've canceled all these grants, once you've cut all this funding, what are you going to do? Are we just gonna concede the fact that we are going to essentially surrender the war on cancer? Or is there a plan that you just haven't told the American people about to build something in its place? And unfortunately, I haven't seen any evidence of a plan.

[Hari Srinivasan]

You have a statement from the Office of Management Budget. It says efforts to focus NIH spending will establish a more sustainable and accountable fiscal path for NIH while ensuring that resources are managed effectively and in a manner that best supports, supports America's biomedical research enterprise. You lay out kind of one of the critiques by Joe Lonsdale, a supporter of Elon Musk and the President, and he says, look, this is a system that's grown bloated and bureaucratic and it's not working nearly as fast as it could and they want to change things. So what's the problem with that critique?

[Jonathan Mahler]

It is very important to recognize that this is not a perfect system by any means. There are criticisms of it both on the left and the right. Any bureaucratic system that has been evolving for more than 50 years now, it has gotten big, it has gotten unwieldy, it has gotten risk averse. There are too many older scientists who are blocking too many younger scientists who have, you know, kind of more, more potentially game changing ideas, who are more familiar with, with new technology, et cetera, that are not able to kind of enter the field. And scientists are spending too much of their time writing grant proposals because it's gotten so competitive. That's a problem. They should be in the lab, they shouldn't be spending all their hours, you know, writing 120 page proposals for a grant. So that is all true and Joe Lonsdale is, is correct about that. I think the problem is that this, this idea that you can just sort of disrupt this system like you would, you know, disrupt the, the technology industry, you know, and replace it with, with startup companies. That that's not how scientific research works. It's one scientist in one lab making a, a small discovery that, another, that and publishing it in a paper and another scientist reading that paper and seeing, oh, that's interesting, I think I might be able to like add a twist to that. I might be able to advance that idea a little further. It's sort of, it's collaborative, it's incremental. It's very different than how the Silicon Valley functions. So I would say that, you know, I think his criticisms of the system are legitimate. I think the idea that it could be be replaced by some sort of disruption centered, Silicon Valley style approach seems misguided to me. To say nothing of the fact that as I mentioned before, we haven't seen any proposal for what's coming next.

[Hari Srinivasan]

Staff writer at the New York Times Magazine, Jonathan Mahler, thanks so much for joining us.

[Jonathan Mahler]

My pleasure, thanks for having me.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And finally, freedom for the Egyptian British activist Allah Abdelfattah. According to Egypt's state run media, President Sisi has ordered the release of the prominent human rights campaigner and blogger. He was first arrested during the 2011 Egyptian uprising known as the Arab Spring. Al Fattah has been repeatedly detained since then and he received a five year sentence in 2021 for allegedly spreading false news and assaulting a police officer. Human rights groups claim the charges were politically motivated. His release will be welcomed by the many who advocated for it, including his mother, Leila Suef, who lobbied the British government and herself went on a nine month hunger strike last September demanding his release. That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always catch us online on our website and all over social media. Thank you for watching and goodbye from New York. What's up?

[Jonathan Mahler]

I got News for your ears.

[Dominique de Villepin]

The podcast.

[Jonathan Mahler]

I am your host, Michael Ian Black. I am weary of the destruction of my country that is occurring. We're all going to need our rest.

[Hossein Ara]

Yeah.

[Jonathan Mahler]

For the Mad Max scenario about to unfold.

[Dominique de Villepin]

Ooh, Mad Max.

[Hossein Ara]

You might be right on the Mad Max scenario.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Which one are you?

[Dominique de Villepin]

In Mad Max, I'm one of the.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Guys that they drive by and the hero shoots a crossbow out the window at some random dude. I'm the random dude that gets it in the net. Oh, that's me. Have I got News for your ears.

[Dominique de Villepin]

Releases new episodes every Wednesday.

[Jonathan Mahler]

Don't miss an episode. Follow us wherever you get your podcast.